Legal Leaders Exchange - Podcast episode 27

Trust, tech, and teamwork: The story behind LegalVIEW^® BillAnalyzer

 

Explore how artificial intelligence and expert human insight come together to transform legal bill review in this deep dive with ELM Solutions bill review experts. Hosted by Jennifer McIver, this engaging conversation features Katie Larson, Associate Director, Consulting on LegalVIEW^® BillAnalyzer; and Lindsay Berman, Manager, Consulting on LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer, as they reflect on how this AI-powered service was shaped by real-world collaboration with legal departments and law firms. It’s a story of learning, adapting, and building something that supports not just compliance, but connection and trust across legal teams.

Legal operations professionals, in-house attorneys, and anyone curious about how AI is shaping the future of legal spend management will benefit from listening to this episode, which delivers candid insights from the experts building and using the technology daily. You’ll walk away with a better understanding of how modular AI, cognitive and machine learning components, and collaborative feedback loops deliver value, without replacing the critical human judgment that legal work demands.

This episode covers:

• How LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer blends machine learning and cognitive AI with expert human review
• What modular AI architecture means for flexibility, customization, and faster improvements
• Why law firms and legal departments both benefit from transparent, supportive change management
• How inaccurate invoice coding is addressed to improve data clarity and benchmarking
• What it takes to turn AI skeptics into enthusiastic adopters—inside and outside your organization

Be sure to follow Legal Leaders Exchange on:

Apple Podcast | Spotify | Audible | iHeart Radio

Transcript

Greg Corombos

Hi. I'm Greg Corombos. Welcome to a new episode of Legal Leaders Exchange, Trust, Tech and Teamwork: the Story Behind LegalVIEW® BillAnalyzer. Today's conversation will take us behind the scenes of LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer, not just the technology, but the journey. Hear from our host, Jennifer McIver, and ELM Solutions experts Katie Larson, Associate Director, Consulting; and Lindsay Berman, Manager, Consulting, as they reflect on how this AI-powered service was shaped by real world collaboration with legal departments and law firms. It's a story of learning, adapting, and building something that supports not just compliance, but connection and trust across legal teams.

Jennifer McIver

Thank you, Greg. This is Jennifer McIver, and I am so excited to be here today. I'm actually streaming from London. I can't even say how excited I am, actually. I've used that word way too many times already today because I have Katie and Lindsay, and this is really getting behind the scenes. Today, we're going to talk about our bill review, how AI, how expert review of the AI, works, the journey and how it's developed through the years. Katie and Lindsay, thank you for being here. And we don't do typically too much on the introductions, but I think it's really important, if we take a step back and just note, I don't think that either of you wanted to do bill review as your career goals. Maybe when you were in middle school or high school, carrying your backpack to school? So, with that, I want to turn it over to you to just tell me a little bit and maybe, Katie, I'll start with you. How did you even get into this gig?

Katie Larson

You're absolutely right. Jen, no idea growing up that I would ever be in bill review, let alone the AI component. I started out in the legal world and some commercial litigation as a manager. Well, worked my way up to management in that particular law firm, which also I didn't really see coming. And then, eventually I worked with a great colleague of mine, my boss, Sharon Horozaniecki, who is actually the director of the LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer department here at Wolters Kluwer. When she started this journey, she asked me to come along with her. That was a little over eight years ago and I've been enjoying this journey ever since then.

Jennifer McIver

Katie, I'm gonna stick with you for just a second. You said it's been a journey as you've worked through, and I know you've really worked from proof of concept to landing our first client here at Wolters Kluwer. And now even beyond, I'm curious, do you have a thought on what was the most challenging part and maybe what the most rewarding part was on that journey?

Katie Larson

It's actually the same answer for both questions. You know, when I first started, like I said, I came aboard a little over eight years ago, and that was very, very early days of LBA. It was only a couple months old when I jumped In, so we didn't have our first client yet. In fact, we were just kind of getting our feet under us. There was no roadmap. There was no blueprint here on what we were doing, how we were going to do it. It was just a lot of very dedicated people coming together. And that was absolutely the most challenging piece, because there's no roadmap. But that's also exciting, right? You get to build it as you go. And so looking at it today, it's just incredible.

Jennifer McIver

That's amazing. I think being a part of something like that, and seeing it to fruition. Out in the industry today talking about the services that we provide, people are absolutely overwhelmed and gracious with what your teams have done. So, I think that's amazing. Lindsay, I think you were an attorney, correct? Litigation, potentially?

Lindsay Berman

Correct, a trial attorney in in court every day.

Jennifer McIver

Attorney, litigation, bill review. I'm just going to call this out. And this is probably unfair because I don't think we've talked about this. Is there a similarity between the two?

Lindsay Berman

If you have litigation courtroom experience, that helps us be able to do what we do in terms of reviewing the invoices and the content that we're seeing on the actual invoices, and understanding the bigger picture and context behind the lines billed on the invoices. So, it's not required to, but it's absolutely helpful to have that background. But yes, I never thought one day that I would be running from a courtroom every single day to sitting at a desk behind a computer every day, but it is the best thing that could have happened for me at the time in my career and where I was in life with starting a family and not wanting to be going to the jail visiting clients every day. So, it definitely works, because I did criminal defense too. This is definitely a big shift, but it's adjacent, because you need to have the background that I had to excel where I'm at now.

Jennifer McIver

Yeah, so now, instead, you're going to yell out, I object to the law firm, and then the in-house attorneys are gonna be like overruled, right?

Lindsay Berman

I mean, it definitely made me a very aggressive reviewer when I first started. Actually, Katie was my manager, and I was reviewing on her team. She and I would have one-on-ones, and she'd say, okay, Lindsay, your adjustment percentage is the highest on the team. And I'm like, Yes! And she'd say, no, no, that's not necessarily a good thing. You're being too aggressive.

Jennifer McIver

I love that. So, Lindsay, you mentioned that you work with Katie, and we know that, Katie, you said earlier that you started essentially from the beginning. So Lindsay, can you talk a little bit about how, over the last several years, the LBA team – we're gonna say LBA, but you know, LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer, or BillAnalyzer – team has grown. It's not the same.

Lindsay Berman

It's not. It even grew from before I first started and Katie can talk about that, too. But when I began back in 2019, I think it was, I was assigned to one client. It was an insurance client, and I would review invoices submitted to that client and make sure that they complied with that client's billing guidelines. Today we have split into two different teams, where we have insurance clients on one team and then corporate clients on the other and I'm now managing the team of attorneys reviewing the invoices for the corporate clients.

Jennifer McIver

Katie, there's a third part of that team correct?

Katie Larson

Yep. Like Lindsay said, we've got the insurance stack, we've got the corporate stack, and then we've got the data service stack, which actually services both corporate and insurance clients, but it's the external AI that we do for their teams versus the internal AI that we do for the two teams that Lindsay mentioned.

Jennifer McIver

So, taking that in just a little bit, you mentioned insurance, and now we have an insurance and corporate stock. That, to me, says that we're probably very different between insurance and corporate. Let's focus a little bit on how are the attitudes different to maybe billing compliance between insurance and corporate and either of you can speak to this.

Lindsay Berman

Oh my gosh, the attitudes are very different. The insurance companies have the attitude towards the law firms almost that the law firms are lucky that the insurance companies have chosen them, and that they can find another law firm who's willing to comply with their billing guidelines, whereas the corporate clients feel more connected with their clients in that they feel more that the type of work they're doing, or the relationships among the attorneys internally at the client or with the law firm, have a relationship there. They sort of feel that they're more tied to those law firms. So, they allow those law firms to get away with billing for more than maybe the insurance companies would allow in certain situations.

Jennifer McIver

Would you say that insurance billing guidelines are pretty strict, and they're strictly followed?

Lindsay Berman

They are more strictly followed. I would say that the insurance companies are more strict with enforcement of their guidelines. The guidelines themselves are written as strictly for both, but the enforcement of them is definitely stricter on the insurance side.

Jennifer McIver

I always say, we have a lot of insurance data, and everybody should be looking to it because I work a lot with our legal rate benchmarking, and insurance rates are way lower. So, I'm thinking that everybody should jump on the insurance bandwagon. I know there's a whole bunch more to it from a from a business and economic standpoint but moving to the idea of corporate, I hear a lot of people saying, I love the idea of being more strict with compliance, I would love it if my attorneys and – sorry for those in-house attorneys that are listening here – but I wish that they would let us keep the compliance going. Because we often feel, as you mentioned before, Lindsay, that the relationship gets in the way. So can you talk to me just a little bit more about how you help on the team to shift some of the perceptions of those in-house corporate teams?

Lindsay Berman

Definitely. So we work very closely with the client contacts. The internal attorneys at the client understand exactly what our processes are so that when a law firm comes to them complaining about adjustments that our team has made on their invoices, they know not necessarily to jump to the conclusion that our team made an improper adjustment or that they need to just reverse it and pay it. There's always more to the story. The best thing to do is to pull up the actual invoice and look, because more often than not, the person from the law firm that's coming to the client did not even look at the invoice themselves. They heard from someone in their billing department or an administrative assistant type of a person, that there was some kind of adjustment made. And so it's kind of like a game of telephone, and by the end, it's like, LBA rejected my invoice, when we didn't even do that. So we do a lot of coaching and explaining and communicating to the internal team at the client that we are here to help. We are here to work with the law firms and to help them submit compliant bills. That doesn't necessarily mean savings is the number one goal, but compliant data on the invoices so that they can run accurate reports and submit to the right matters, and all kinds of different things that we do to help manage spend on both the law firm side and the client side. And when we explain that, and we have buy-in and cooperation from both the client and the law firms, everything works very smoothly, and everyone is very happy and pleased with what we're able to do to facilitate, the smoother bill review process.

Jennifer McIver

I love that, and I'm kind of curious: you mentioned earlier the relationship aspect of it and how in-house attorneys are a little bit more hesitant or reticent to actually want to reduce those invoices. When you're working with a new organization and you have attorneys that are a little bit more on that reticent side, is it an all or nothing proposition? Here's your guidelines, we're just going gangbusters. Or do you actually, through the course of having those conversations, ease into the level of stringency and compliance?

Lindsay Berman

It's tough because it really depends on what the goals of the client are. If the number one goal is savings, then that conversation is going to sound a lot different, because you can't have both. You can't have a lot of savings but also foster those relationships with a bunch of exceptions to the billing guidelines. You can't have it both ways. One challenge that we see is that the person who wants LBA and wants savings is often not the same person at the client who ends up encouraging us to create exceptions and enable the law firms to bill in a different way than their guidelines say. When there's a disconnect there, we see a challenge with getting the client to their goal of savings, but also making the client contact happy and fostering the law firm relationship with exceptions. So it's difficult on our side, for the expert service side, and that's where we step in and really try to help juggle that line. I'll let Katie speak on the DS side, how they’ve handled that too.

Katie Larson

Thinking about insurance versus corporate and how that looks, even on the data service side of things and the AI side of things, you kind of get into what Lindsay was talking about where you've got an appetite on one side to find all of these adjustments, get these savings right, really hold the law firms accountable. And so, we've got AI that is very specifically designed, from a more recall perspective. It's looking for all the possibilities, and you shift over into more of that corporate realm where they're maybe not quite as hungry to be adjusting things. It's more about the compliance, like Lindsay was saying, and getting firms to get on the straight and narrow there. And so that's where we focus a lot more on the precision, thinking about those clear-cut violations that the AI can be flagging. So, like Lindsay's, they know exactly what they're looking for. They know it's kind of a precision piece there. The AI is very accurate. It's going to steer them to where those most impactful adjustments are.

Jennifer McIver

That’s a great segue, Katie. I love this because we're really starting with a softer side. And I think that legal ops does struggle sometimes. If we're talking legal operations, they want savings. They want to get those invoices off their desk. They also want efficiency. But of course, their attorneys are a little skeptical, and I think you have some processes down to really help those in-house attorneys become more champions rather than detractors. But I think we do really need to talk about the AI side now. So, going from that soft side right to the technical side, and Katie, I think that you were initially not quite a champion of AI, were you? So I'm sorry, am I calling that out to your boss?

Katie Larson

Yeah, we might need to edit that. No, I'm just kidding. I was a detractor. I really was. Like Lindsay mentioned earlier, she and I used to work together in that expert service side, in insurance, where we had a team of folks like Lindsay and others who were going through the bills, making the adjustments. And part of that process was having AI available to them, the AIs, picking out different potential compliance opportunities for the reviewers to be taking those adjustments. And I remember when we first started using it, I was like, what is this? It's so it's so dumb, it took, it took a while. I was like, I don't know why it's flagging this. And you just kind of get into this mindset of, it doesn't know what it's doing. I'm going to discount literally everything it's telling me to do. Just human nature there. And so, I spent a lot of time just kind of being overly critical, I think, of the of the AI. But it really, over time, transitioned. I'd be like, well all right, maybe you're onto something, AI. I guess that's probably a problem.

Jennifer McIver

I think that's crazy amazing because I feel like that is relatable to so many people. I mean, sometimes I'm even throwing stuff into a Chat GPT now, and it's coming back with stuff, and I'm just like, yeah, no. But at the same time, there is some level of reasoning. It actually is a little bit smarter than we think. I know that was a GenAI type of reference, and I think that's a good segue into talking about BillAnalyzer. We have a patented AI solution, and I believe – and this is where I need your help, Katie – because I feel like you might have been a detractor, but now you're kind of like the technical expert for us in this. And so, I really would love you to talk a little bit about the machine learning components and the cognitive rules that are being used in the solution.

Katie Larson

Yeah, absolutely. And I think it's a great question too, because part of my “detractorism”, if that's a word, is you discredit what you don't understand. That's human nature. And so a lot of early days working with folks with a the AI, it's just about bridging the gap of understanding. As soon as you start to understand what it's doing, how it's doing it, and what it's looking for, it starts to make a lot more sense. You start to get behind it. When we think about the different components we have in our in our current AI solution, that machine learning piece, the cognitive piece, you know, that really goes hand in hand. Those two play together, but they're very fundamentally different. And so from a high level, when we think about machine learning, that's really your umbrella. It's looking for, for example, a machine learning component for administrative issues. It's looking for all administrative violations, right? It's just reading through everything. It's picking out whatever it can. From that more general standpoint, now, when we think about the cognitive side of it, those are very precise rules. And what I mean by that is, when you think about an administrative general functionality of the machine learning, you also have this cognitive piece where it might be looking for administrative scheduling, administrative filing, every single little distinct task you can think of that fits under that umbrella, which it makes it so that when we think back to the insurance and corporate piece, we're able to, maybe on the insurance side, lean on that broader function that's going to catch more of the general stuff and sprinkle in that cognitive piece. Whereas on the corporate side, you have those cognitive pieces, those really specific rules, looking for very specific things, coming out front and center. And so those two pieces play together when we leverage and roll out the different AI solutions we have for clients today.

Jennifer McIver

I think it's important that everybody understands that AI is evolving, whether that is traditional AI, which I would refer to more as the machine learning that we're talking about, or even whether it's generative AI, it's always on. It's always taking that transitional journey, or that maturity journey, I guess we could say. And in doing so, you've talked a little bit about working with the AI and having it become more structured and modular. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Katie Larson

Absolutely. When we first started, it was a bit more of a black box, right? It was just this comprehensive one AI. But, you know, as we shifted, as we grew, as we evolved, and as we even started offering AI externally to clients, for them to use with their own teams, we had to get a lot more structured. Back to the earlier example of the administrative functions, the ML piece and all the specific cognitive pieces, those are all what we call modular so you have your administrative stack of modular functions. You've got a vague compliance issue stack of different rules and configurations, right? And so they're all in these separate stacks, and underneath those stacks are all the distinct little rules, and that's where it makes it very effective and efficient for us. If Lindsay or somebody on her team's like, ah, this particular rule’s not going so well, we can get in there and grab that rule function, mess around with it, make modifications to it, whatever we have to do from that modular approach, without impacting any of the other AI. And it's true of the external client, too. It makes it very easy for us to pinpoint issues, make modifications, and sometimes it's just an evolutionary thing, too. Going back to your earlier comment, Jen, where the billing guidelines and the expectations of our clients, as well as the behavior of the firms, it all evolves. And so being able to get in there and make those quick changes so we're staying relevant with the current industry trends is huge.

Jennifer McIver

I think that's really important, Katie, you're really working with the data team. And then, you know, Lindsay, let's say you're on the corporate team. And of course, we have the insurance team. How do you guys collaborate internally on that? Because I feel like there's a lot of ability, at least for me, I'm like, okay that wasn't perfect, but it helped me. I move on. How do you guys help talk about the AI itself and help make it better between all of you?

Katie Larson

There's actually a couple answers to that, the first one being, we've got feedback loops based on reviewer behavior towards what the AI did. You've got this automatic function in the background that positively and negatively reinforces what the AI is doing, especially in that machine learning component. The other piece, too is, I've got an entire team of former bill reviewers. They used to work on the expert service side, so they know the ins and outs. We take a look at different outputs that come through, taking a look. What did the human do? What did the AI do? Is this action on both parties? Is that correct? If we need to make a tweak to the AI, that's something we're looking for. If it seems like it's a reviewer thing, we'll have conversations with them, and we kind of meet in the middle on it. Sometimes it is something where the AI needs to be adjusted, if you have a mismatch in behavior between the AI and the human. But sometimes it's also just a learning opportunity. And so I think those two facets of collaboration are huge between teams like myself as well as Lindsay's teams. I don't know, Lindsay, is there anything you want to add?

Lindsay Berman

Well, I do want to say that one huge misconception I think that people have when they hear that we have AI or that we use AI, is that that there's not an entire huge team of human people, literally feeding, creating, updating the AI. You are the AI. Katie, so I want to make sure that credit is given to where it's due, because we have a lot of amazing team members on that team that make the AI possible. And maybe eventually, over time, with how it learns, it will replace the need for the humans. I don't think that would ever happen, though, because we, like Katie said, are constantly recalibrating and updating the AI based on the human feedback. And the humans are the ones who are doing the updating and providing the feedback, and we also use the flags that it gives us to flag certain data points on the invoice to give us a clue that, hey, this could be a duplicate. This could have been resubmitted somewhere. Something on this invoice could have been billed on another invoice, on a different matter that we would never have known without the AI flagging that for us.

Jennifer McIver

One question I know I get asked a lot, or there's just a lot of conversations about out in the industry when I'm at events, is the fact that law firms never code their invoices right, they never code them the same. A lot of people want UTBMS codes, they want certain activity codes. And I know we've talked about all of the different – see if I'm saying it right here – modular buckets. I'm curious, though, how do the codes and not coding things come into play? I mean, can we help code? So that way, maybe, if law firms haven't done it, can we correct it or give better data? So that way, when corporate legal departments are looking at maybe a Power BI dashboard, they can actually see the different areas of work being done.

Katie Larson

Yes, this is actually it comes up quite a bit. We actually get this question a lot about, is the AI just completely dependent on the coding? Because law firms are a little bit different, each one of them. And as far as the AI goes, relatively not dependent on the coding. It's actually looking at reading narratives, different timekeeper details, timekeeper levels, things like that. And so that's kind of the nice thing about the coding factor. We're not necessarily depending on that, because we know the industry. We know how these law firms essentially have a little miscoding often, yes, absolutely. And so we definitely don't have the AI dependent on that. However, it's obviously something that folks such as Lindsay, people on her team – if there's a client who is interested in making sure that right coding is in there that's something that we can even take adjustments at the human level for inappropriate use of UTBMS codes. You know, some clients are like, we don't care. But, to your point, Jen, it's so important. It's so important to get these law firms to be using the correct coding, even if we can audit very well without them being perfect at it, from a data clarity perspective. And the different clients being able to see what kind of spend is going into, you know, litigation, what kind of spends going into their motion. So, it's a huge deal, and I definitely recommend to clients to make sure these firms are consistent in what they're doing in that that aspect, because it does impact your whole program.

Jennifer McIver

We talked a little bit before about how we've worked with in-house counsel and we're helping to assure them that we're not the enemies as you're out there talking to law firms. But I'm kind of curious if, when you're managing and doing change management, whether it's with law firms or whether it's with our corporate legal departments, what kind of messaging are you providing? What kind of education are you providing to really help everybody understand that we're on the same team?

Lindsay Berman

Yes, and it's so important that we really take the time. Sometimes we'll hold multiple live sessions. We record it, we send copies of our slide deck. But the content of those sessions is that we explain who we are, exactly what we do, and our processes. We review, step by step, instructions on what to expect, how to review, adjustments made to invoices, what is going to happen next for whether you're the law firm or whether you're the internal attorney at the client. And then the proper communication channel streams, different protocols that we have. We go over all of that during the education session, but the most important takeaway and message to convey is, like you said, we are here to help and to be your go-to person for all questions that you have about the invoices that you're submitting or reviewing or receiving from the law firms, and that the number one goal is not just to slash their invoices and short pay the law firms. It's to help make sure, because oftentimes the law firms, especially the larger ones, they have so many matters and so many clients that have all different billing guidelines, so they're having confusion and making simple mistakes accidentally, just because they're busy and they don't have the time. And the people in their billing department that are in charge of submitting the invoices, they're not the same people who are actually billing on the invoice or submitting the invoices to the matter. So because of that, the folks that we interact with from the law firms who are actually submitting the invoices and responding to the appeals are often an administrator in the billing department, and they love us. They become friends with us because they know they can email me and say, hey, I need help with this. And I will understand that they have 10 other clients that they're submitting invoices to this month, and that the reason why something is not exactly accurate on their invoice is not because they're trying to overcharge our client, but it's because it's hard to manage a lot of invoices. And it's an administrative type of process.

Jennifer McIver

Lindsay, I think you got me here. I think we're ready to create the t-shirt, LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer: law firms love us. I think I got that. Katie, I know on the data service side, I don't know that we've been clear, I think we've used data service a few times. I think we've said external AI. So just a little bit of clarification on that. And then, before you've talked that sometimes there’s this thought that AI is the enemy. So a little bit of aha on that if you could.

Katie Larson

When we make the distinction between internal and external AI, when I'm talking about the internal AI, that's essentially the AI we're designing for the bill review teams, like Lindsay's team, that insurance stack. It's our own internal people using it. When we think about the external side of things, that's where we've got, essentially, clients who have their own bill review teams. They might be in-house, they might be using a third party, and we do design and develop AI for those folks to use, as well. So, we're kind of on both sides of the fence there, which is pretty cool. It really keeps us on our toes. Not only are we competitive in that external market, but we're bringing a lot of that expertise and modification and different evolution into our internal team, as well.

Jennifer McIver

I think you've said before, though, folks come in and they think it's the enemy. Is there any one thing that changes them, or what happens?

Katie Larson

It's a very similar situation to what Lindsay just described, where, because we're designing AI for external folks, they're not part of WK, there's this immediate defense that comes up. It happens every time. I'm very used to it, where they just feel a little bit threatened. They're like, I can do my job without AI, what are you talking about? Why? Why are they doing this to me? And so it takes a little bit. It's a lot of conversations, it's a lot of education sessions with those review teams. Helping them understand, to Lindsay's earlier points, this is a tool. This is not replacing them. They're still critical to the overall picture. This is just going to help them get through hundreds, thousands of invoices, millions of line items. This is going to help them become more efficient at their job. I think, a lot of times, once people not only understand this is a tool, it's not something that's replacing people, but also we're here to help. This is not something where we're here to criticize them or do anything along those lines. We're here to help with AI that essentially is helping with their review, between my team of expert bill review folks, as well as our data scientists and our AI engineers. But we're essentially experts creating AI for experts. And once people understand that, and they know their part of the journey, because going back to all the feedback, we need to make refinements to the AI, it's like they come along on the journey. It takes a minute, but we get them on the ride.

Jennifer McIver

So not only are we going to have the “law firms love us” t-shirt, we're going to have the “if your legal team’s on the fence, we can flip that switch and make it work.”

Katie Larson

Oh, absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, I love it.

Jennifer McIver

Well, Lindsay and Katie, thank you so very much today. I think that this has been a great exploration, and I love your passion. I love the fact that you guys have been working on this for a while, and you're taking the journey. Because I do really think that even just listening to you, and of course, I have talked to some of our wonderful clients, you really help them, take them on a journey as well for something that sometimes is a little bit difficult to start with. But in the end, it's just been a great combination of technology plus people. And it's always people process and technology. So thank you guys

Lindsay Berman

Thank you.

Greg Corombos

Those were the words of Jennifer McIver, Katie Larson, and Lindsey Berman. Legal Leaders Exchange is hosted by Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions, the market leading provider of enterprise legal spend and matter management and legal analytics solutions. For more information and additional guidance, please visit wolterskluwer.com or call 713-572-3282. Please join us for future podcasts on optimizing legal operations and achieving your legal and business goals.